Ikarian Reefer fire (Sierra Leone)
- The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
A refrigerated cargo ship ran aground off Sierra Leone in 1985 and then caught fire. Underwriters refused a claim of about US$3 million, alleging the fire was set with the owners' connivance; the Court of Appeal found in 1995 that the fire was deliberate.
Amount of the claim as recorded. The Court of Appeal found the fire deliberate in 1995.
Status As of 1995: the Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance decision and found the fire deliberate; no later proceedings were found in the sources reviewed.
What happened
The Ikarian Reefer, a refrigerated cargo ship ("reefer"), ran aground off Sierra Leone in 1985. A fire broke out afterwards.
The underwriters, led in the record by Prudential, alleged that the fire had been started with the connivance of the ship's owners and refused to pay a claim of about US$3 million.
The owners sued. The Commercial Court found for the owners ([1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 68). The Court of Appeal reversed that decision and found that the fire had been deliberate, in National Justice Compania Naviera v Prudential ([1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 455).
The research record notes no environmental consequence for this incident: it states the environmental consequence as not documented.
- 1985Ship runs aground off Sierra Leone; fire follows
- 1993Commercial Court finds for the owners ([1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 68)
- 1995Court of Appeal reverses and finds the fire was deliberate ([1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 455)
What was said
Where accounts differ
Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.
Alleged the fire was set with the owners' connivance and refused about US$3m.
Pursued the claim against the underwriters; succeeded at first instance.
Found for the owners ([1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 68).
Reversed the first-instance decision and found the fire was deliberate ([1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 455).
How it looked
Shown
Recorded
- Underwriters (Prudential) alleged the fire was set with the owners' connivance and refused a claim of about US$3m.
- The Commercial Court found for the owners; the Court of Appeal reversed and found the fire deliberate (1995).
Who gained
Reached nature or the ground
Gained elsewhere
Responses on record
- prudential (Positions stated in the litigation decided in 1993 and 1995): Alleged the fire was set with the owners' connivance and refused a claim of about US$3 million.
In court and with insurers
Lawsuits and rulings
- 1995Defendant won$3000bn Claim refused by underwriters (about)National Justice Compania Naviera v PrudentialCommercial Court (first instance); Court of Appeal · Civil · Ship owners (National Justice Compania Naviera) → Prudential (underwriters)
The Commercial Court found for the owners ([1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 68). The Court of Appeal reversed and found the fire had been deliberate ([1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 455). Status is read from the claimant's side.
Insurers
- Claim refused$3000bn Claim, aboutPrudential (underwriters) → Owners of the Ikarian ReeferStated reason: Underwriters alleged the fire was set with the owners' connivance.
The underwriters refused a claim of about US$3 million. The Commercial Court found for the owners; the Court of Appeal reversed and found the fire deliberate (1995).
What nature saw
Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.
What we don't know
Nature
- Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.
Accounts
- Disputed Was the fire started with the owners' connivance?
Record
- None on record Environmental consequence of the grounding and fire: stated in the record as not documented.
Did the harm stop?
No environmental harm is recorded in the sources reviewed.
Who paid?
The record does not state who paid for the loss. The underwriters refused the claim of about US$3m; the Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance decision that had been in the owners' favour.
Sources
Connected cases
- PG&E wildfire settlement, tax deduction and Fire Victim Trust United States · 2018–2025 Related matter